Can we agree? Episode 2

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Is taxing headcount a good idea?

Yes
0
No votes
No
6
100%
 
Total votes : 6

Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 07, 2018 6:49 pm

OK, so Seattle city council will soon be voting on a new tax to help the city raise money for fighting their homeless problem. The current bill would impose a 26 cent per hour tax on every employee work hour. This equates to roughly to $500 per employee per year. The tax would be applied to firms whose revenue is over $20M per year. They are estimating it would apply to approx 500 to 600 business in the Seattle area.

Here is some info on it if you want to see more details:

https://taxfoundation.org/seattle-busin ... gLG2_D_BwE

http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/has-s ... ivism-with

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/am ... -tax-vote/



So this week's question -- is a tax on employee headcount a good idea?



To give precision let me tell you what the question is NOT about:

-whether or not Seattle needs more tax money
-whether or not homelessness is a problem in Seattle
-whether or not there should be a new tax



The question is a principle question -- given all the different ways tax money can be raised, is a straight up headcount tax a good idea?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon May 07, 2018 7:14 pm

This tax is regressive. It's asking the working and middle class to pay for the homelessness problem.

The goal is noble. But we need to be taxing large businesses and high income earners, not working people.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 07, 2018 7:33 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:This tax is regressive. It's asking the working and middle class to pay for the homelessness problem.





That's what it seems to me. Directly linking a tax to employee count is obviously going to do one of three things:

1.) Cause businesses to shift work to divisions in other locales that don't have this tax...thus eliminating jobs in Seattle
2.) Have companies look to hasten the replacement of workers with automation
3.) Essentially reduce wages of employees to help cover the tax


As you said, all of these exponentially hurt the working class
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon May 07, 2018 7:52 pm

Amazon has threatened to stop building a new building that would provide 7,000 jobs if the tax is passed. Since that statement, the vote on the tax has been delayed. I think Amazon wins this, one way or another. Amazon employs 45,000 people currently in the city (that's insane).
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon May 07, 2018 7:55 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:Amazon has threatened to stop building a new building that would provide 7,000 jobs if the tax is passed. Since that statement, the vote on the tax has been delayed. I think Amazon wins this, one way or another. Amazon employs 45,000 people currently in the city (that's insane).

More evidence that business owns government. It just happens to be right on this issue.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue May 08, 2018 8:36 am

To COMPLETELY IGNORE your descriptions of what this thread is not about :P ...

places like seattle should give out free one-way bus passes/train tickets to get out of the city. Hell, I'd be freakin homeless if I lived in Seattle. Trying to "combat" homelessness in a place like seattle by trying to raise all boats with the tide is a fruitless endeavor IMO - its such an inefficient and wasteful use of money/resources. Some places in this country just flat out aren't conducive to low-income living. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's natural. So there should be an easy way for people who can't "make it" in Seattle to get the hell out of there and try to make it somewhere else.

The first rung on the ladder in Seattle is 100 ft up in the air. Why invest/redistribute all this money to raise the water level so that people can reach up and grab the first rung and pull themselves up, when literally any other place in this country (save SF/Hawaii) has a lowest rung that is much more attainable. Hell, you can make an honest life in Macon, Georgia or some other small town in the south by getting a job, working, saving. You grab that 2ft-off-the-ground rung in Macon, put a roof over your head, and build from there. Instead of living in a ****ing tent in Seattle because "it's my scene, man" - what a joke.



on topic - head count seems like an odd and imprecise way to tax a companies in a municipality. Not all industries have the same margin. And then, within a single industry, companies function with different attitudes, so for instance, one company with 20 employees could be running really trim and be investing/providing a lot of time and quality services and investing in their employees, while another could be a fast and loose, not investing in quality/stock/extra-mile services or time/care to their employees. So the incentive turns into doing things the shittier/cheaper way in the-already-capitalist paradigm, where doing things "the right way" instead of cheapest as possible, is a relative rarity. Not a good trend, IMO. Although this is just my dumbass way of thinking of it, I could be entirely wrong
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 08, 2018 9:14 am

$75 Million in taxes to serve 10,000 homeless people?

$7,500 per homeless person.

That's on top of the $63 Million per year the city already spends. You could build them a ****ing town.

As a matter of fact....

Here is 6,262 acres NE of the city for $12M
https://www.landandfarm.com/property/6262_2_Acres_in_Snohomish_County-7057304/

Here is 5 models of tiny houses you can build for $5,000 each. Let's build 2,000 per year for $10M
https://thehomestead.guru/five-off-the-grid-houses-built-for-less-than-5000-each/

Need water, power generation, and irrigation. Civil Engineering training for the Military. Let's call it $5M. worth of water purification and pipes, septic tanks, and solar panels. Construction will run 2 years because of the weather, They'll have to FEMA camp it with Americorps for a while.

While Americorps is there along with anyone else who has the time, teach them how to do productive ****. $1M worth of small farm equipment. Throw in another half million for seed and livestock.

Total Project (in millions):
Land- 12M
Housing-30M (assuming some cohabitation)
Civil Engineering- 5M
Agribusiness- 1.5M

Total- 48.5 Million over 2-3 years. Homeless population in Seattle plummets to approx. 2,500. New town sprouts out of nowhere completely off the grid. All we have left here is medical care and a school house of some sort while they build a community.

Not a foolproof plan and that's leaving out a bunch of stuff. But I can at least dream up on the back of a napkin an option other than running soup kitchens and shelters for $63M a year.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 08, 2018 10:04 am

beardmcdoug wrote:To COMPLETELY IGNORE your descriptions of what this thread is not about :P ...

places like seattle should give out free one-way bus passes/train tickets to get out of the city. Hell, I'd be freakin homeless if I lived in Seattle. Trying to "combat" homelessness in a place like seattle by trying to raise all boats with the tide is a fruitless endeavor IMO - its such an inefficient and wasteful use of money/resources. Some places in this country just flat out aren't conducive to low-income living. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's natural. So there should be an easy way for people who can't "make it" in Seattle to get the hell out of there and try to make it somewhere else.

The first rung on the ladder in Seattle is 100 ft up in the air. Why invest/redistribute all this money to raise the water level so that people can reach up and grab the first rung and pull themselves up, when literally any other place in this country (save SF/Hawaii) has a lowest rung that is much more attainable. Hell, you can make an honest life in Macon, Georgia or some other small town in the south by getting a job, working, saving. You grab that 2ft-off-the-ground rung in Macon, put a roof over your head, and build from there. Instead of living in a ****ing tent in Seattle because "it's my scene, man" - what a joke.



Agreed. It seems the entire Pacific coast is becoming too expensive to live unless you make six figures...and even then its still difficult. I read an article that said the AVERAGE salary Amazon pays in Seattle is something like $110,000 year.

But that's what happens...the West coast has beautiful scenery and great weather. That comes at a premium. Life just works that way.






beardmcdoug wrote:on topic - head count seems like an odd and imprecise way to tax a companies in a municipality. Not all industries have the same margin. And then, within a single industry, companies function with different attitudes, so for instance, one company with 20 employees could be running really trim and be investing/providing a lot of time and quality services and investing in their employees, while another could be a fast and loose, not investing in quality/stock/extra-mile services or time/care to their employees. So the incentive turns into doing things the shittier/cheaper way in the-already-capitalist paradigm, where doing things "the right way" instead of cheapest as possible, is a relative rarity. Not a good trend, IMO. Although this is just my dumbass way of thinking of it, I could be entirely wrong



I completely agree with everything here and that is why I made the thread. It seems most people can see this...but for some reason the city administrators can't. This is one of the stupidest taxation methods I have ever heard. Why don't they simply raise the city income tax? Or the income tax rate on business? While businesses would still have a pressure to reduce costs, at least it isn't a 1 to 1 correlation with labor costs.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue May 08, 2018 10:16 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:$75 Million in taxes to serve 10,000 homeless people?

$7,500 per homeless person.

That's on top of the $63 Million per year the city already spends. You could build them a ****ing town.

As a matter of fact....

Here is 6,262 acres NE of the city for $12M
https://www.landandfarm.com/property/6262_2_Acres_in_Snohomish_County-7057304/

Here is 5 models of tiny houses you can build for $5,000 each. Let's build 2,000 per year for $10M
https://thehomestead.guru/five-off-the-grid-houses-built-for-less-than-5000-each/

Need water, power generation, and irrigation. Civil Engineering training for the Military. Let's call it $5M. worth of water purification and pipes, septic tanks, and solar panels. Construction will run 2 years because of the weather, They'll have to FEMA camp it with Americorps for a while.

While Americorps is there along with anyone else who has the time, teach them how to do productive ****. $1M worth of small farm equipment. Throw in another half million for seed and livestock.

Total Project (in millions):
Land- 12M
Housing-30M (assuming some cohabitation)
Civil Engineering- 5M
Agribusiness- 1.5M

Total- 48.5 Million over 2-3 years. Homeless population in Seattle plummets to approx. 2,500. New town sprouts out of nowhere completely off the grid. All we have left here is medical care and a school house of some sort while they build a community.

Not a foolproof plan and that's leaving out a bunch of stuff. But I can at least dream up on the back of a napkin an option other than running soup kitchens and shelters for $63M a year.



lol awesome. thanks for crunching those numbers - that's good perspective right there
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby NYBF » Tue May 08, 2018 10:23 am

Zarniwoop wrote: I read an article that said the AVERAGE salary Amazon pays in Seattle is something like $110,000 year.



Interesting, considering all the stories you see about how Amazon employees are paid ****. Unless it's all execs in Seattle.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 413 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 08, 2018 10:26 am

NYBF wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote: I read an article that said the AVERAGE salary Amazon pays in Seattle is something like $110,000 year.



Interesting, considering all the stories you see about how Amazon employees are paid ****. Unless it's all execs in Seattle.


I'm sure it is mainly office people (I doubt they have lots of warehousing within the city limits)...certainly not majority execs though....I thought it was something like 50,000 employees total...I could be wrong.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 08, 2018 10:26 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:$75 Million in taxes to serve 10,000 homeless people?

$7,500 per homeless person.

That's on top of the $63 Million per year the city already spends. You could build them a ****ing town.

As a matter of fact....

Here is 6,262 acres NE of the city for $12M
https://www.landandfarm.com/property/6262_2_Acres_in_Snohomish_County-7057304/

Here is 5 models of tiny houses you can build for $5,000 each. Let's build 2,000 per year for $10M
https://thehomestead.guru/five-off-the-grid-houses-built-for-less-than-5000-each/

Need water, power generation, and irrigation. Civil Engineering training for the Military. Let's call it $5M. worth of water purification and pipes, septic tanks, and solar panels. Construction will run 2 years because of the weather, They'll have to FEMA camp it with Americorps for a while.

While Americorps is there along with anyone else who has the time, teach them how to do productive ****. $1M worth of small farm equipment. Throw in another half million for seed and livestock.

Total Project (in millions):
Land- 12M
Housing-30M (assuming some cohabitation)
Civil Engineering- 5M
Agribusiness- 1.5M

Total- 48.5 Million over 2-3 years. Homeless population in Seattle plummets to approx. 2,500. New town sprouts out of nowhere completely off the grid. All we have left here is medical care and a school house of some sort while they build a community.

Not a foolproof plan and that's leaving out a bunch of stuff. But I can at least dream up on the back of a napkin an option other than running soup kitchens and shelters for $63M a year.



lol awesome. thanks for crunching those numbers - that's good perspective right there


It goes to show that investing in people is more cost effective than bureaucracy. but there's a buncha different variables that create problems.

You could simply give them $5,000 to go get a fresh start, but what's to stop them from coming back next year?
Nifty as the idea may be, it's still semi-forced relocation which adds an ethical dilemma.
You round up 10,000 homeless folks and build them a village with free housing. What about working people barely getting by? where's their free house?
How many homeless folks hear about this and hitchhike up I-5 from LA and San Diego to get in on it?

Far from a foolproof plan.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue May 08, 2018 10:27 am

NYBF wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote: I read an article that said the AVERAGE salary Amazon pays in Seattle is something like $110,000 year.



Interesting, considering all the stories you see about how Amazon employees are paid ****. Unless it's all execs in Seattle.

It says average, not median. Average salary for Amazon empoloyee nation wide is $104,000. The median salary nation wide for an Amazon employee is around $28,000.00.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 08, 2018 10:28 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
It goes to show that investing in people is more cost effective than bureaucracy. but there's a buncha different variables that create problems.

You could simply give them $5,000 to go get a fresh start, but what's to stop them from coming back next year?
Nifty as the idea may be, it's still semi-forced relocation which adds an ethical dilemma.
You round up 10,000 homeless folks and build them a village with free housing. What about working people barely getting by? where's their free house?
How many homeless folks hear about this and hitchhike up I-5 from LA and San Diego to get in on it?

Far from a foolproof plan.



I think you have over-estimated the costs....some of those homeless are probably Baby Boomers....their solution is much cheaper and it isn't a recurring expense!!!

:P
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby NYBF » Tue May 08, 2018 10:30 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
NYBF wrote:
Interesting, considering all the stories you see about how Amazon employees are paid ****. Unless it's all execs in Seattle.

It says average, not median. Average salary for Amazon empoloyee nation wide is $104,000. The median salary nation wide for an Amazon employee is around $28,000.00.


Ah, that makes more sense.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 413 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue May 08, 2018 10:32 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
It goes to show that investing in people is more cost effective than bureaucracy. but there's a buncha different variables that create problems.

You could simply give them $5,000 to go get a fresh start, but what's to stop them from coming back next year?
Nifty as the idea may be, it's still semi-forced relocation which adds an ethical dilemma.
You round up 10,000 homeless folks and build them a village with free housing. What about working people barely getting by? where's their free house?
How many homeless folks hear about this and hitchhike up I-5 from LA and San Diego to get in on it?

Far from a foolproof plan.



I think you have over-estimated the costs....some of those homeless are probably Baby Boomers....their solution is much cheaper and it isn't a recurring expense!!!

:P


LOL
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 08, 2018 10:42 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

I think you have over-estimated the costs....some of those homeless are probably Baby Boomers....their solution is much cheaper and it isn't a recurring expense!!!

:P


LOL

10,000 9mm bullets- $1,500

Execute the homeless.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Buc2 » Tue May 08, 2018 11:12 am

Ah. Selective (collectivist) humor. Interesting. Is that superior to ironic humor?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby deltbucs » Tue May 08, 2018 11:15 am

Good discussion here and I don't know if I have much to add that hasn't already been said. Headcount-based tax is a pretty terrible way to do it.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 201 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 08, 2018 11:56 am

Buc2 wrote:Ah. Selective (collectivist) humor. Interesting. Is that superior to ironic humor?

Only when discussing the impending execution of Baby Boomers.

Besides, it's a running joke in here rather than a part of the meme wars out there. I think that's an important distinction.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby bucfanclw » Tue May 08, 2018 12:03 pm

You have to know your audience. I think execution of Baby Boomers is just something we all see as silly.


Silly as in, it's silly it hasn't been done yet.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby DreadNaught » Tue May 08, 2018 12:11 pm

I love this place. When I read MB post where he put all those numbers together I knew someone would comment as Zarni did.

I agree, execute the homeless when we execute the boomers. Contributors and Consumers ONLY!! If you're not a net gain to society than you gots to go!!!
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11227
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 475 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 08, 2018 12:40 pm

Atlas must shrug.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 565 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Buc2 » Tue May 08, 2018 12:53 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Ah. Selective (collectivist) humor. Interesting. Is that superior to ironic humor?

Only when discussing the impending execution of Baby Boomers.

Besides, it's a running joke in here rather than a part of the meme wars out there. I think that's an important distinction.

Okay. I get it now. As long as something is a running joke or meta humor, it's okay. Thanks!
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby NYBF » Tue May 08, 2018 12:57 pm

I think more importantly is if something is actually funny. Posting something that isn't funny and thinking it actually is funny should stay in the "funny memes thread."
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 413 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 08, 2018 12:59 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Only when discussing the impending execution of Baby Boomers.

Besides, it's a running joke in here rather than a part of the meme wars out there. I think that's an important distinction.

Okay. I get it now. As long as something is a running joke or meta humor, it's okay. Thanks!



Here is my distinction....and others have alluded to something similar

Our joke is not rooted in anything else but humor...not a single one of us believes that Boomers should be put to death. Even in all of our generalizations about generations we have pointed out shortcomings of every generation...I have often said Xers are apathetic.

Idiotic political memes are often started and forwarded by people who are partisan hacks thinking they are scoring points. Simply look on this board....99% of memes bashing Dems are posted by R's....and vice versa.


You are free to laugh at either or neither or both
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue May 08, 2018 2:09 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Okay. I get it now. As long as something is a running joke or meta humor, it's okay. Thanks!



Here is my distinction....and others have alluded to something similar

Our joke is not rooted in anything else but humor...not a single one of us believes that Boomers should be put to death.


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Buc2 » Tue May 08, 2018 3:11 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Okay. I get it now. As long as something is a running joke or meta humor, it's okay. Thanks!



Here is my distinction....and others have alluded to something similar

Our joke is not rooted in anything else but humor...not a single one of us believes that Boomers should be put to death. Even in all of our generalizations about generations we have pointed out shortcomings of every generation...I have often said Xers are apathetic.

Idiotic political memes are often started and forwarded by people who are partisan hacks thinking they are scoring points. Simply look on this board....99% of memes bashing Dems are posted by R's....and vice versa.


You are free to laugh at either or neither or both

Thank you. That wasn't hard at all. And you're right. I will endeavor to be more circumspect going forward.
Oh...I also want to add...I find humor in many things. Yes...even in left memes that make light of the right. I guess I fall into the trap that everyone else will see the humor in things the way I do. I should know better than that by now. Again, I will try to refrain from political humor since it seems to rankle folks here.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Can we agree? Episode 2

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 14, 2018 7:51 pm

Well the idiots unanimously passed it. They cut it a bit, new estimates are $300 per worker per year instead of $500
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 218 times


post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buc2, Rocker and 6 guests